|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 6338 Records
-
2003 (12) TMI 524 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Export-Oriented Unit - Exemption notification - Amendment ... ... ... ... ..... e later on cannot be applied to the impugned goods. Moreover, we note that the Development Commissioner had clarified that the appellants did not need any recommendation for indigenous procurement and they were also issued with a CT3 certificate by the concerned Range Superintendent for procurement of duty free DG set indigenously when the unit was under the physical control. Besides, since the Ministry itself in its letter dated 4-11-1997 has permitted said duty free procurement it can be presumed that the Board of Approval appointed by the Ministry would also have granted such permission. Since other requirements under Notification No. 1/95 have been fulfilled and the impugned goods have been utilised for the specified purpose, we are of the view that this is a fit case for extending the benefit of the exemption under the said notification to the impugned goods. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The stay application also stands disposed off.
-
2003 (12) TMI 523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay of 33 days in filing - Condonation of ... ... ... ... ..... e work. In support of the above contention the Medical Certificate has been attached. It has also been contended that the Managing Director, who takes personal interest in Central Excise matters was on business tour to abroad. The appellants have pleaded that the Demand Drafts required to be attached to the appeal was fully ready by 28-8-2003 i.e. much before the last date of filing the appeal. The said fact reflect the bona fide of the appellants. 3. emsp After considering the above submissions, we are of the view that the delay in filing the present six appeals is on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The fact that the Demand Draft was prepared before the last date of expiry of the limitation is indicative of the appellant rsquo s intention and efforts to file the appeals in time. The delay cannot be considered as either deliberate or mala fide. In view of the above, we allow all the miscellaneous application and fix the stay petition on 6-1-2003.
-
2003 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ion claimed. Therefore, the fact that packing used by the assessee has been found by the assessee to be durable and returnable in the earlier order of the Tribunal itself would be no answer to the proposal in the notice, which has been confirmed by the Commissioner. This of course in addition to the fact that the freight was not an issue before the Tribunal. 14. emsp I am therefore in agreement with the view of the Member (Technical) that the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner for examining the eligibility to deduction on these accounts on the basis of actual figures. 15. emsp The papers may be returned to the referring Bench. Sd/- Gowri Shankar Member (T) MAJORITY ORDER 16. emsp The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the appellant rsquo s claim for deductions of certain extra expenses towards fright and packing. Sd/- (C. Satapathy) Member (T) Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
-
2003 (12) TMI 521 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... n under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., whereas the production beyond the value of Rs. 75 Lakhs would pay full duty. 6. emsp On these considerations, I hold that, the revenue appeal is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. However, on going through the order-in-original, I am unable to decipher as to whether the facility of deemed credit has been availed beyond 15-3-95 i.e. the date after which the said facility was withdrawn vide M.F. (D.R.) Order No. TS/8/95 TRU, dated 16-3-95. Therefore, I remand this case back to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner concerned only for the limited purpose to segregate the credit amount, taken beyond 15-3-95 and pass fresh orders thereon within 3 months from the date of this order regarding its eligibility, in accordance with law, after following the principles of natural justice. 7. emsp The appeal of the Revenue is allowed only to the extent above, by way of de novo remand and consequently the orders of the lower authorities are set aside.
-
2003 (12) TMI 520 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... applicants have shown us that the imported goods and indigenously procured goods were put into use in connection with the operational requirement of the Ruia Aquaculture Farms Ltd. but due to total crop failure, they could not fulfil export obligation which does not mean that the preliminary condition of notification was not fulfilled by them. In these circumstances they plead that the pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived. 3. emsp The prayer opposed by the Ld. DR, who reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority. 4. emsp On hearing both sides and noting the above submissions, we are of the view that a prima facie case for waiver has been made out, particularly in the face of language of the notification and in the absence of any averment or finding that the imported items and indigenously procured raw material are not used in the production. We therefore waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending these appeals.
-
2003 (12) TMI 519 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Pre-deposit amounts ... ... ... ... ..... no claim for interest was staked by them before the original authority. However, before the Commissioner (Appeals), they prayed for grant of interest also. But, as correctly noted by the learned Commissioner, the appellants had already abandoned their right to claim interest vide letter dated 26-4-2001 (supra) which was never repudiated. Their letter ex facie showed that they were conscious of their right to claim interest. It was issued to the department for the specific purpose of dis-claiming interest on the principal amounts covered by the refund applications. The epistolary text testified the intentional abandonment of a right by the appellants. We therefore cannot help recording a finding that the appellants, in this case, had, both expressly and by conduct, waived the right to claim interest and therefore they can have no bona fide grievance against the denial of interest. The view taken on this aspect by the learned Commissioner is sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 518 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Classification dispute ... ... ... ... ..... lared the classification of the product as per their understanding, Department cannot attribute mala fide intention without adducing the evidence to that effect. The appellants have classified these products under different Headings treating their product as goods of general use and relying upon Note 1 to Chapter 83 of the Tariff. The appellants have also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Densons Pultretaknik (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that by merely claiming the product under a particular Heading, it cannot be said that there was any wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. Once there is no wilful misstatement on the part of the appellants in classifying the products under a particular Heading/sub-heading of the Tariff, the show cause notice cannot be issued for demanding duty for the extended period of limitation. We, therefore, allow both the appeals on the aspect of time limit only without going into the merits of the matters.
-
2003 (12) TMI 517 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Custom House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... m the reverse side of the Bill of Entry ldquo GARMENT ACCESSORIES rdquo ldquo LACE rdquo . The declaration form filled with original Bill of Entry was blank and unsigned, one with duplicate and triplicate Bill of Entry were blank. Copy of invoice and packing list available with the appellant showed the description as ldquo GARMENT ACCESSORIES rdquo . Although, it is stated by the appellant that discrepancies were done by their clerk, however, the director in his statement admitted that they had not checked the details of the importer and he had not signed the declaration form and also had committed other various discrepancies which were known to the director of the appellant. The director of appellant company being aware of all facts cannot now argue that it was his clerk who has committed the mistake and he should not be penalized. The cited judgment is clearly distinguishable and penalty imposed is very meager and it does not call for any inference. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 516 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... 1-4-97 to 30-6-2000 through the show cause notice, dated 15-10-2001 must be held to be time-barred. 11. emsp Since the duty demand has been held to be time-barred, the other issue on merits regarding the availability of the benefit of the notification in question to the appellants 1 and 2 in respect of the goods in question is not required to be gone into. 12. emsp The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole short ground alone that the demand is barred by limitation. 13. emsp Since the duty demand has been found to be time-barred, the plea of the Revenue raised in Appeal No. E/2261/02 for awarding interest and imposing independent penalty under Rule 173Q becomes redundant. 14. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside in toto. The appeals of the appellants 1 and 2 (E-2258-2259/03-B) are accepted with consequential relief, permissible under the law, while the appeal of the Revenue E/2261/02-B is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 515 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... On perusal of the relevant entry in the Table annexed to Rule 57Q, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned S.D.R. that under Serial No. 4, Heading No. 90.33 does not find a mention. However, I find that the lower authorities have allowed credit on Thermocouple Tips in this case under Serial No. 5 to the said Table which covers ldquo components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 rdquo . The order in original specifically mentions that industrial furnaces are covered under Serial No. 3, and since the Thermocouple Tips are used in such furnaces, they can be allowed credit under Serial No. 5 as components, spares and accessories of such furnaces. As such, I am of the view that the credit under Rule 57Q has been rightly allowed under Serial No. 5 of the said Table in respect of the impugned goods, even though Heading No. 90.33 is omitted from the list under Serial No. 4. Accordingly, the department rsquo s appeal is rejected.
-
2003 (12) TMI 514 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Detention under COFEPOSA ... ... ... ... ..... act exist. In our opinion, the statute having conferred a right on the consumer to be heard in the matter pertaining to determination of the tariff, the High Court was in error in denying that right to the consumers. rdquo 5. emsp Thus, in view of the clear observations of the Supreme Court when the statute itself gives an opportunity of being heard that opportunity cannot be whittled or taken away. In the present case, the facts are very clear. No notice under Section 6(2) was issued to the petitioner and obviously, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner although the same was required to be done under the statute. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 22-7-2002 cannot be sustained insofar as the petitioner and her said property is concerned and the same is quashed and set aside. 6. emsp The said property be released from forfeiture and be handed back to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (12) TMI 512 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Custom House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... m the reverse side of the Bill of Entry ldquo GARMENT ACCESSORIES rdquo ldquo LACE rdquo . The declaration form filled with original Bill of Entry was blank and unsigned, one with duplicate and triplicate Bill of Entry were blank. Copy of invoice and packing list available with the appellant showed the description as ldquo GARMENT ACCESSORIES rdquo . Although, it is stated by the appellant that discrepancies were done by their clerk, however, the director in his statement admitted that they had not checked the details of the importer and he had not signed the declaration form and also had committed other various discrepancies which were known to the director of the appellant. The director of appellant company being aware of all facts cannot now argue that it was his clerk who has committed the mistake and he should not be penalized. The cited judgment is clearly distinguishable and penalty imposed is very meager and it does not call for any inference. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 511 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... 1-4-97 to 30-6-2000 through the show cause notice, dated 15-10-2001 must be held to be time-barred. 11. emsp Since the duty demand has been held to be time-barred, the other issue on merits regarding the availability of the benefit of the notification in question to the appellants 1 and 2 in respect of the goods in question is not required to be gone into. 12. emsp The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole short ground alone that the demand is barred by limitation. 13. emsp Since the duty demand has been found to be time-barred, the plea of the Revenue raised in Appeal No. E/2261/02 for awarding interest and imposing independent penalty under Rule 173Q becomes redundant. 14. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside in toto. The appeals of the appellants 1 and 2 (E-2258-2259/03-B) are accepted with consequential relief, permissible under the law, while the appeal of the Revenue E/2261/02-B is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 510 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... On perusal of the relevant entry in the Table annexed to Rule 57Q, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned S.D.R. that under Serial No. 4, Heading No. 90.33 does not find a mention. However, I find that the lower authorities have allowed credit on Thermocouple Tips in this case under Serial No. 5 to the said Table which covers ldquo components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against Serial Nos. 1 to 4 rdquo . The order in original specifically mentions that industrial furnaces are covered under Serial No. 3, and since the Thermocouple Tips are used in such furnaces, they can be allowed credit under Serial No. 5 as components, spares and accessories of such furnaces. As such, I am of the view that the credit under Rule 57Q has been rightly allowed under Serial No. 5 of the said Table in respect of the impugned goods, even though Heading No. 90.33 is omitted from the list under Serial No. 4. Accordingly, the department rsquo s appeal is rejected.
-
2003 (12) TMI 509 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty ... ... ... ... ..... letters and figures ldquo First day of September, 1997 rdquo . After the amendment the proviso to the Notification reads as under - ldquo Provided that the exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the goods manufactured or produced prior to the First day of September, 1997 and cleared on or after that date from an induction furnace unit, or as the case may be, a hot re-rolling mill. rdquo 4. emsp It is the contention of the Revenue that the benefit of Notification No. 50/97 as amended was thus applicable to the goods manufactured prior to 1-9-97 and cleared on or after that date from an induction furnace. But there is no force in the submission. This amendment to the Notification was issued only on 30th August, 1997 and therefore, any clearance made by the respondents during the month of August, 1997 was duly exempted by the Notification as it stood before its amendment. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue, which are rejected.
-
2003 (12) TMI 508 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ioner (Appeals) has imposed penalty equivalent to only the utilised amount. 2. emsp I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has himself accepted that this case warranted penalty under Section 11AC. However, the amount of penalty was reduced with reference to the amount utilised. The Rule 57-I(4) provides penalty with reference to the credit taken. 3. emsp Accordingly, I find that the Revenue rsquo s appeal has merits. The same is allowed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.
-
2003 (12) TMI 507 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of ... ... ... ... ..... ulated by overwriting as 23-3-2001 against column 4 in E.A.-1. He dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months. 3. emsp On going through the documents produced by the learned D.R. before us, we find that the case put forward by the appellant by an affidavit that the copy of the order of the Commissioner was received only on 24-4-2003, cannot be accepted. The Despatch Register which is kept in the Office has to be given more evidentiary value rather than the above mentioned affidavit sworn in by the party. The postal receipt would also show that the order was despatched to the appellant in 2001 itself and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that it received the order only in April 2003. We find that the appellant has not made out sufficient reason to condone the delay of more than 2 years. In the result we dismiss the application to condone the delay. 4. emsp In view of the above, the appeal itself stands dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 506 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ase all the invoices were issued before the said date. Shri Dixit further states that the dates of invoices are 29-11-1994, 30-11-1994 and 19-12-1994 as evident from the Show Cause Notice itself. 2. emsp After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case in their favour in view of the Board rsquo s Circular dated 8-11-1994 cited above since all the impugned invoices were issued before 31-12-1994. As such, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (12) TMI 505 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Invocation of - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ir representatives had retracted their statements or showed dissatisfaction with the process of stock verification. We are also of the view that extended period of limitation is invocable as it is clearly mentioned in the show cause notice that as the goods had been found short, there is clear indication that the same had been clandestinely removed without payment of duty. Once the allegation of clandestinely removed has been specifically mentioned in the show cause notice, it cannot be claimed by the Appellants that one of the ingredients mentioned in proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act has not been alleged in the show cause notice. In view of this, we uphold the demand of duty against the respondents as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice will be met if a penalty of Rs. One lakh only is imposed on them. We order accordingly. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2003 (12) TMI 504 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... rred by limitation can only be examined after taking into consideration the entire evidence on records which can only be done at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Suffice it to say at this point that the appellants have not been able to make a prima facie case in their favour so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally. Financial hardship has not been pleaded before us. Accordingly, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we direct the first appellant, M/s. Albright and Wilson Chemicals India Ltd. to deposit an amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks from today. Subject to deposit of above amount of duty, pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty on first appellant is dispensed and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The stay petition of the second appellant M/s. N.S. Shetty is allowed unconditionally. The matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 16-2-2004.
............
|
